Laserfiche WebLink
At this point, John Fitzsimmons stated he feels there i <br /> nothing compelling about the Application. <br /> There being no further Commission or public c comment, the <br /> Vice Chairman entertained a motion. <br /> MOTION:: .al.ph Shaw made a Motion to continue the Nearing in <br /> this matter to November 15, 2001 at 7: 50 p.m. , at Applicant' <br /> request; which Motion was seconded by Carole Moore and so voted <br /> unanimously. <br /> The following three Hearings involving the sane wall, the <br /> Vice Chairman called them together <br /> 7 : 50 Stephen lung, 25 Ocean Bluff Drive; 7 : 55 Deborah Grady, <br /> 23 Ocean Bluff Drive; and 8: 00 Sheila McNamara, 17-21 Shore <br /> Drive, all three having been continued from October 18, 2001. <br /> The vice Chairman recognized Michael Gr•ots e, representing <br /> Applicants, who informed the Commission that the three <br /> situations, from a field prospective, are quite different in <br /> location and impact. <br /> Nor. Sherman reported on the history of the matter, noting he <br /> had requested the Assistant Conservation Agent to make an <br /> inspection in terms of wildlife aspects. <br /> r. Sherman agreed with Mr. Gr'ot s} e by identifying the most <br /> eastward property to be problematical . The ratter involves an <br /> Amended Order of Conditions for walls. Upon comparison of the <br /> work limits and parking areas with the previous order of <br /> Conditions, most cases proved that the actual work is being moved <br /> considerably closer. <br /> Taping this into consideration, the vice Chairman suggested <br /> the 7 :50-Lang, and 7:55-Grady Hearings be addressed together; and <br /> that the8 : 00-McNamara Bearing be continued for two-weeps . <br /> MOTION: Michael Talbot made a Motion to continue the <br /> Hearing in the matter of Sheila McNamara to November 15, 2001 at <br /> 7 : 55 p.m. , at Applicant ' s request; which Motion was seconded by <br /> Ralph Shaw and so voted unanimously. <br /> Making reference to the plans, Mr. Grot s e indicated the <br /> footprint of the garage which has been pr'eiousl.y approved under <br /> an Order of Conditions. He also made reference to an outline of <br /> the proposed structure to be removed which has been previously <br /> approved. There is a plan on record which provides for <br /> reveget at ion. <br /> Mr. Sherman requested a revised plan be submitted to the <br /> Commission showing more clearly the proposed garage area. <br /> -10- <br />